If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

I think it's OK to keep expanding - but when they hit 30 teams... Division 1 and Division 2 with promotion and relegation. Should emulate t he most successful soccer systems in the world. Our 2nd half of the season would have been so much more thrilling if we had been in relegation battles for the first 7 years.

Thats why they are paying the expansion fee ($100M) to stay Div1 for as long as the league is around.

I think it's OK to keep expanding - but when they hit 30 teams... Division 1 and Division 2 with promotion and relegation. Should emulate t he most successful soccer systems in the world. Our 2nd half of the season would have been so much more thrilling if we had been in relegation battles for the first 7 years.

it would be great if they did that...but some teams paid big money to join MLS, they will not accept being demoted to a 2nd division, they would want there $50 million back (or whatever they paid to join MLS these days). Other issues also include travel distance (USA/Canada is huge, most Europe countries are tiny) to expensive to cover travel unless they play closer teams more often , with a 2 tier system you probably couldn't gurante what teams will be in the top tier from year to year basis.

Something that would actually be more cost efficient would be just having 2 complete different League Tables. Not one built to be any better then the other, but almost 2 different leagues.

East League = 15 or 16 clubs. Single table. play each club home and away. Team that finishes in 1st place after 28 or 30 games is champions of the League like in the premiership.

West League = 15 or 16 clubs. Single table. Play each club home and away. 1st place team after 28 or 30 games is champions of the league like in the premiership.

(a system like this could even allow for up to 36-40 clubs in MLS, Meaning 18-20 clubs in each division, allowing 1 home and away season with only playing 36-38 season games with out having a completely mismatched uneven schedule that all other Pro Sports leagues in USA/Canada have)

Then when the playoffs begin either do (1st place East vs 6th place West) (2nd Place East vs 5th Place West) (3rd place East vs 4th place West) and (1st Place West vs 6th place East) (2nd West vs 5th East) (3rd place West vs 4th place East) OR just east play east and west play west until the MLS Cup final in which its a East plays West Final!

Now you still have US Open Cup games and Concacaf Champions League in which East clubs and West Clubs can play each other and other divisions and countries as well of course due to the random draws and such before the MLS Playoffs even begin. I know MLS likes to schedule a big New York vs LA game because of hoping to get high ratings, and it may mean 1 team might not play another team for years because they never draw each other in the playoffs and tournaments, but overall Id personally rather have a single table system, home and away schedule. A promotion and relegation system would be great, but that won't happen, as the League grows it is impossible to have a balanced and even schedule like you see in Europe unless maybe a straight up East and West League, could be the closest thing to a 2 tier divisiion system even tho 1 may not actually be more elite then the other?? Its actually very doable and cost efficient to form as well unlike the Promotion and relegation 2 division system.

Pro/rel will never catch on with MLS. No billionaire is going to invest 100 mil+ to play 2nd div league.

Just because pro/rel is the traditional thing, it doesn't mean it's what's right.

Pro/Rel works in other nations because they have a long history of teams and fans. They have a large percentage of fans who are died-in-the-wool fans who will still go watch their team even when they are relegated. Portsmouth fans still go watch in large numbers even when they are relegated 3 times, for example. Rangers are an even better example.

I just can't see that being the case in the MLS - TFC are relegated and their average attendance would drop 80%.

you have so many weak clubs in MLS right now. Most mid-American (ex-KC / RSL) don't even get 10k a game (MLS bullshit attendance figures aside). Don't get why they are expanding (obviously its the $$$). But its better for the league long term to shed weak markets and move into stronger ones and stay around 20.

Teams are just putting expansion fees in their pockets, and when expansion stops all these teams will fold and league looks bad and more teams struggle and fold in a cascading effect. Garber isn't doing a good job for the long term sake of the league.

Pro/Rel works in other nations because they have a long history of teams and fans. They have a large percentage of fans who are died-in-the-wool fans who will still go watch their team even when they are relegated. Portsmouth fans still go watch in large numbers even when they are relegated 3 times, for example. Rangers are an even better example.

I just can't see that being the case in the MLS - TFC are relegated and their average attendance would drop 80%.

yes and no. When teams drop from the premiership into Championship or vise vesra, prices do often change quite a lot either increasing or decreasing and same with attendance numbers. There are some big clubs that would get big attendance no matter what division they are in (Manchester or Arsenal probably for example, just like Leafs would probably get big attendance even if they dropped a division if they had relegation), but prices would change. Other smaller clubs often would drop or gain attendance sales by 20%- 30% - 40% - 50 % when they get promoted or relegated. Portsmouth have a good hard local support club, also there stadium is only about 20k. Some other medium size clubs like Middlesbrough FC average 23k in a 34k stadium in Championship, move them up to premiership and they will sell out 34k. Same with clubs like probably Leeds, 23k average in the Championship, move them to premiership and they will sell out 37k most likely. Big differences, the hardcore fans seem to only make up half the average attendance, drop another division into League 1 and it might go even a bit lower then that. But a team like Leeds or Middlesbrough will always get at least 15k-25k, even if there were in the 4th division (League 2) and can sell out 34k and 37k stadiums in the premiership. A team like Arsenal would probably still get 50-60k in Championship and maybe even League 1. Put them in the 4th division (League 2) and hey they still probably get 40-60k. They just have a lot of fans. A smaller club that play in a 15k stadium may draw 15k in the Prem, 10k in the Championship and 5k in League 1 or League 2. It just how it is. Smaller clubs will not continue to hold such big attendance numbers.

you have so many weak clubs in MLS right now. Most mid-American (ex-KC / RSL) don't even get 10k a game (MLS bullshit attendance figures aside). Don't get why they are expanding (obviously its the $$$). But its better for the league long term to shed weak markets and move into stronger ones and stay around 20.

Teams are just putting expansion fees in their pockets, and when expansion stops all these teams will fold and league looks bad and more teams struggle and fold in a cascading effect. Garber isn't doing a good job for the long term sake of the league.

KC since they moved to there new stadium a few years ago have sold out all there games. When you see them on TV there isn't empty seats. They use to struggle a lot when they played in the NFL Kansas Chiefs stadium, then did a bit better in the small Ball Park as at least in a 11k stadium they could fill it. Now they have one of the better atmospheres in MLS in the new stadium. RSL also sold out most of there games this year. Teams that struggle more with attendance issues are Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Colorado, New England and DC United, and you could maybe even put New York Red Bulls in there considering they have an amazing 25k stadium and have had a good team and yet still the stadium looks only half full on many occasions.

DC United will get good attendance when they move into there new stadium, I bet will get 20k a game. Some of the other teams, not so sure they will change as most of these teams I think either never will move into a proper stadium (New England), or they just built there new stadiums way to far away from the city (Chicago-Dallas-Colorado) or wrong part of town (Red Bulls in New Jersey) to maybe the city just doesn't have enough support to get high attendance numbers on average (columbus)

This is good, but not great, I would love to see it implemented this year. It could happen during game time and posthumous yellows handed out during the game (5 minutes after incident), including FOR DIVING!

Video replay update – The MLS Board of Governors was provided an update on possible real-time video review at the meeting and will continue to evaluate a plan for the future.

Toronto is the greatest city in all of recorded history, prove me wrong.

Big increase in TAM, announced officially today. $32M overall, $800K per team for next two years.

No one likes us, we don't care.You saw me standing alone, without a dream in my heart, without a love of my own.
Louis Van Gaal, philosopher. "What is this world twisted?"Need more nonsense in your life? Follow me on the twitter @MrTuktoyaktuk

you have so many weak clubs in MLS right now. Most mid-American (ex-KC / RSL) don't even get 10k a game (MLS bullshit attendance figures aside). Don't get why they are expanding (obviously its the $$$). But its better for the league long term to shed weak markets and move into stronger ones and stay around 20.

Teams are just putting expansion fees in their pockets, and when expansion stops all these teams will fold and league looks bad and more teams struggle and fold in a cascading effect. Garber isn't doing a good job for the long term sake of the league.

I am worried about growing the league to quick. But so far (early stages yet) all the clubs that struggle in attendance are not new clubs. All clubs since 2007 that joined MLS like Toronto, Seattle, Vancouver, Portland, Philadelphia, Montreal have all done pretty well in drawing decent to good attendance numbers. Orlando and New York also did well on attendance this year, however it was the first year, but Orlando look like they will continue to draw good crowds in there new stadium in future years, New York is harder to tell at Yankee stadium. But exspecially Seattle and Portland have made huge impacts on the Supporters culture, with Seattle getting 36k fans a game to Portland supporters just bringing the league to another level.

"The decision expands the TAM initiative after its introduction earlier this year. The initial program allowed teams to spend $500,000 over five seasons on players in that space. Although those funds still exist, they are now augmented by this new influx of TAM to increase spending power.

Clubs will receive $800,0000 in each of the next two seasons, but those funds come with strings attached. The 2016 chunk must be committed by the conclusion of the 2017 secondary transfer window, while the 2017 portion must be committed by the conclusion of the 2018 secondary window."

Targeted Allocation MoneyAnnounced on July 8, 2015, each MLS club will receive $100,000 per year for the next five years ($500,000 total) in additional funds, referred to as Targeted Allocation Money, to invest in their roster outside of the player salary budget. Targeted Allocation Money may be used in four ways:

Clubs may use the funds to sign a new player provided his salary and acquisition costs are more than the maximum salary budget.

Clubs may re-sign an existing player provided he is earning more than the maximum salary budget.

Clubs may buy down the budget charge of an existing Designated Player (no longer making that player a DP) provided the club concurrently signs a new Designated Player at an investment equal to or greater than the player he is replacing.

Clubs may trade their Targeted Allocation Money to another club.

MLS clubs may bring forward a portion or all of their allotted Targeted Allocation Money, up to $500,000, to be used in a single season on up to three players.

Targeted Allocation Money and general Allocation Money may not be used in combination when signing or re-signing a player, or when buying down the budget charge of a Designated Player. Either Targeted Allocation Money or general Allocation Money may be used on a player in a single season, not both.

While MLS clubs are not required to use their full $100,000 each season, they are required to use the remaining amount (of the annual $100,000) during the following year.

No one likes us, we don't care.You saw me standing alone, without a dream in my heart, without a love of my own.
Louis Van Gaal, philosopher. "What is this world twisted?"Need more nonsense in your life? Follow me on the twitter @MrTuktoyaktuk

1. TAM buys players down to max budget charge, then regular allocation needed to further reduce charge?
2. Does the 800k for this year need to be used up this season? or can it carry over?

Can't combine TAM and regular allocation on single player, at least per 2015 roster rules.

No one likes us, we don't care.You saw me standing alone, without a dream in my heart, without a love of my own.
Louis Van Gaal, philosopher. "What is this world twisted?"Need more nonsense in your life? Follow me on the twitter @MrTuktoyaktuk

Thanks for posting this, very interesting. I had forgotten that MLS Live was only a one-year extension. I'm afraid cord cutters like me are going to be screwed starting next season. Perhaps there won't be any way to watch the away games. I suppose I'll be giving my local bartender extra business if that's the case.

KC since they moved to there new stadium a few years ago have sold out all there games. When you see them on TV there isn't empty seats. They use to struggle a lot when they played in the NFL Kansas Chiefs stadium, then did a bit better in the small Ball Park as at least in a 11k stadium they could fill it. Now they have one of the better atmospheres in MLS in the new stadium. RSL also sold out most of there games this year. Teams that struggle more with attendance issues are Chicago, Columbus, Dallas, Colorado, New England and DC United, and you could maybe even put New York Red Bulls in there considering they have an amazing 25k stadium and have had a good team and yet still the stadium looks only half full on many occasions.

DC United will get good attendance when they move into there new stadium, I bet will get 20k a game. Some of the other teams, not so sure they will change as most of these teams I think either never will move into a proper stadium (New England), or they just built there new stadiums way to far away from the city (Chicago-Dallas-Colorado) or wrong part of town (Red Bulls in New Jersey) to maybe the city just doesn't have enough support to get high attendance numbers on average (columbus)

No one likes us, we don't care.You saw me standing alone, without a dream in my heart, without a love of my own.
Louis Van Gaal, philosopher. "What is this world twisted?"Need more nonsense in your life? Follow me on the twitter @MrTuktoyaktuk

I expect four 7-team divisions, but i think they'll increase the number of games to 38 per season, with home and away games played against in-division teams and 5 of 7 teams in it's sister-division in conference. There would only be alternating home or away series against teams in the opposing conference. There would also be more mid-week games to balance the owners desire for games on weekends for gate receipts and network desires for mid-week games for TV ratings. I think they would look at adding teams in a geographical/time-zone grouping, North to South so that scheduling can take advantage of climates at different times of the year. Such as:
EASTERN CONFERENCE:Atlantic: Miami, Orlando, Atlanta, NYRB, DCU, Philly, (Charlotte/Nashville)
Northeast: Columbus, Chicago, NER, Toronto, Montreal, NYCFC, (Indianapolis/St Louis/Cincinnati)
(the reason for splitting up the two NY teams is to make sure that market gets at least one home game from every team in the league once every season)
WESTERN CONFERENCE:Central: RSL, Colorado, Houston, Dallas, SKC, Minnesota, (San Antonio/St Louis)Pacific: Vancouver, Seattle, Portland, LAG, LAFC, Sacramento, San Jose

They would then break these groups up into eight 4-team divisions when they expand to 32 teams and schedule intra-conference games by shuffling divsions annually, like they do in the NFL without needing to add additional games to make the numbers work out better.

I think if it got to 30 or more clubs just make it simple, 1 League table for East and 1 League table for the West. East Division play East teams 1 home/1 Away. West teams play each other 1 Home/ 1 Away. Example :

Playoffs=
1st place and 2nd place East teams get a bye
1st place and 2nd place West teams get a bye.

3rd East vs 6th West
4th East vs 5th West
3rd West vs 6th East
4th West vs 5th East

and playoffs continue from there forward exc. in which after the 1st round East teams can play East teams and west teams can play West teams after the first round of playoffs depending on the draws. (OR just have East play East and West play West all the way until the MLS CUp final)

Season East and West Clubs do not play each other. However Concacaf Champions League, US Open Cup and MLS playoffs West and East teams can play each other depending on what draw they get.

This would make the League format way less confusing and a more balanced schedule. Even if you had 15 clubs in West and 16 in the East it would not matter as they are competing during the season in different League tables. It would create the single league table we all want with a home and away schedule (Relegation/promotion will not happen in MLS). It creates less costs on taveling from east cost to west coast and it creates an even table unlike the confusing North East, North West, Central exc divisions where some teams play each other 2 times, others 1 time while other teams they don't play at all.

This also balances the amount of season games played well. MLS has a very busy schedule with Euro and World Cups. Concacaf Champions League, US Open Cup and MLS Playoff games. And then you have cities with awful winters. It really makes the ideal amount of season games played probably between 28-34 games. 30-32 being best options. And it maintains a simple League table, home and away.

The only thing I could see MLS reject such a simple format as this is they would not have a season LA vs NY game that they seem to crave for because they are the 2 biggest markets in the country even tho reality can be more people might watch Seattle vs Portland or Toronto vs Montreal then this imaginary LA/NY high ratings market Derby, or the fact that say LA Galaxy was to get another Beckham player, what if he couldn't play teams in the East during the schedule??? me personally I wouldn't care. This would just be more simple.

Pro/rel will never catch on with MLS. No billionaire is going to invest 100 mil+ to play 2nd div league.

Just because pro/rel is the traditional thing, it doesn't mean it's what's right.

This argument ignores that the same people invest in Europe, in teams that go up and down all the time and lose tons of money. Or that MLS is basically designed to lose money on purpose, and that it hasn't stopped Franchise fees from skyrocketing anyway for the very reason that it's advantageous to some.

And it doesn't mean relegation is wrong, either.

What, exactly, do people in NA have against the idea of turning the bottom of the table into a race? I don't get it.

Interesting, I believe there was something about the broadcast & streaming situation in the original article when OgtheDim first posted it...? Now I can't see anything, so I'm not sure. However, I did notice that the date on the article at http://www.mlssoccer.com/post/2015/1...duling-updates is December 6, 2015, 3:05 PM EST.

OgtheDim's original post, which contained this link, was actually earlier than that: 12-05-2015, 06:24 PM. So maybe MLS edited the article later after posting it...???

What, exactly, do people in NA have against the idea of turning the bottom of the table into a race? I don't get it.

IMO, I think it has to do with the fact people generally don't support leagues in NA other than "top" leagues. Prime example in Toronto that likes to think it's mad about hockey, but in reality it's all about the Leafs - you can generally walk up to the ticket counter when the Marlies are in the conference finals and watch a game for face value. I never understood why, as I enjoy Marlies games and the value-for-money is off the charts compared to going to the ACC... not as many chances to be seen by the cool kids though, and definitely not something people tend to brag about doing...

Triple-A baseball gets a fraction of the attendance that MLB teams do.
AHL teams generally don't get great attendance.
NBA D-league isn't very well attended.
Doesn't seem to be anything other than NFL for American football.

American's support college and high schools teams so I don't see how they don't support leagues other than the top. You could argue that college football is more popular than the NFL and is a ridiculous money maker right now.